"The leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate on Tuesday dropped a proposed assault weapons ban from the chamber’s gun-control package – dealing a blow to supporters of the ban, though it could still come up for a vote.

The sponsor of the measure, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., revealed that Reid told her the proposed ban would not be in the initial package. Feinstein said she's "disappointed" with the decision, and is expected to nevertheless offer it as an amendment.

But the move by Reid to cut it from the main bill signals a lack of congressional support for a proposal that would not only revive, but strengthen, the decade-long ban that expired in 2004."

Let's ban those assault weapons. John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, the DC snipers, used an AR-15 to kill 10 and terrorized the entire DC Metro area 10 years ago. OH, wait, an assault rifle ban was in place back in 2002. Fortunately Muhammad was executed, thus he will be unable to kill anyone anymore with as much as a butter knife.

Reid will allow amendments to go to a vote if the bill hits the floor. The point of this is to allow dems facing tough re-election challenges to vote no on any given amendment so they can then go back to their states and say they supported gun rights.

I smell another filibuster coming from Paul to prevent that from happening.

I agree, AFSNCO. There are those whose own lives they hold cheap or worthless and they view others' lives in that same regard.

Vigorous enforcement of EXISTING crime laws would greatly alleviate the gun violence problem. ANY convicted felon, regardless of race, sex, etc., in possession of a firearm gets a Federal 5 at the opposite end of the country from where they currently live. Richmond did it with the Exile program and it was quite successful.

The problem is that African-American males tend to use firearms in violent crimes at a rate higher than their percentage of the general population. This means that more A-A males will end up with the no-probation federal sentence. It will, however, reduce gun crime, particularly in black neighborhoods and isn't that the intent here?

The headlines evoking mass shootings are actually quite small in relation to overall gun violence.

If the intent is to save lives, make a law that cellular service providers must disable texting features in any phone moving over twenty miles per hour. The lives saved and property damage/hospital costs averted will far exceed what could be hoped for in a gun ban.

Mad, the issue is not guns. The problem is all the laws that they are introducing are not going to make a hill of beans difference for those that do not follow the law to purchase/acquire weapons. It is only going to affect those of us that already follow the letter of the law to purchase and carry weapons.

The issue in our country has become a lack of respect for life. It is not a gun problem but a culture of life that devalues and desensitizes us to the fact that life is precious. In my personal opinion life is a gift from God that we should be thankful for. For those that are not religious they should view it as being something that you are given one shot at and if you blow it you do not get a do-over. We need to start putting values back into our lives that include respect for each other.

worryfree...was it Chicken Little really? Wasn't it in the original bill that was introduced into the Senate and then removed by Reid? Isn't it also true that they can reintroduce it as an amendment to the bill to try to get some guns banned again? Hasn't NY threatened to take away certain weapons...by force if necessary?

Twas the NRA playing the Chicken Little card. They are going to take away our guns!! Buy now at inflated prices so the manufacturers that fund the NRA can make more money! And this gun owner does not appreciate the gun price increases.

So your seriously going to try and tell all of us here that an estimated 52 million household own HALF the guns owned in the entire world. That Cowgary weather has addled you something fierce there friend.

In the vast majority of the entire US guns just are not a problem to folks - contrary to what you hear. Yes in certain areas guns are a real problem - not the guns but who has them and how they are used. But passing more laws that these people will pay no attention to will do no good.

If your serious about wanting to reduce the misuse fo guns - fine we can do that. Its just that he liberals and a huge chunk of the rest of the US population just don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually do what will work. Hold people responsible for what they do. Use a gun in a crime and ten years gets added to any sentence - its not subject to plea bargain or parole. Use a gun in a crime where someone gets shot and its a capital crime. Sentence to be executed in six months after guilt is proven and adjudged. One appeal is allowed.

AFSNCO, No guarantees but don't you think that some start needs to be made? Less guns out there simply means that in all likelihood there will be less gun crime. Simply look at the numbers. A full 50% of all the guns owned in the world are owned by folks in the USA. More importantly the NRA I believe is all about themselves. It is a "money machine" for those in their offices. Why does the NRA need all that beauacrcy and management. They don't but they fill you all with the BS that they are protecting your rights. When the founding fathers enshrined the "right to bear arms" in your constitution they had no idea of what would come of that. I believe that if they were alive today to see all the killings they would take out that part of the constitution. What person alive wants to see so many innocent folks gunned down. And don't tell me that there would be more if folks didn't carry guns. Just look around at other parts of the world to see this mayhem is a U.S. thing.

One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 Schoolshootings since Columbibe and there is no change to US gun regulation of guns.

What is wrong here? Over 3000 gun killings since Newtown and the NRA still can't see the need for some type of realistic gun control. I think this has nothing to do with right to bear arms and everything to do with all the folks employed by the NRA. Isn't it always about the money?

An "assualt weapon" is the name some congressmen gave to a "scary looking" semi-automatic rifle.A "Personal Defense Weapon" is a semiauto/full-automatic rifle government agencies buy for their employees.The gov people know how to use their words.

YOu are correct gocat. I wonder just how many folks know that except is very special circumstances - with special permits and expensive licences - it is presently illegal to own an assault gun in the US.

In the next election voters will have a chance to drop some of the politicians that were influenced by money instead of the wishes of the electorate. Weak kneed politicians influenced by cash are bad for America. It is no wonder congress's popularity in single digits. All that said, voters in general have little understanding of what the difference is between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon.

That renewed AWB will utterly sink the bill, as it rightly should be anyway. And how much more gun control do we really need? Wouldn't it be wiser to VIGOROUSLY enforce the laws that are already out there FIRST? Then, if we find something isn't working, THEN and only then should we change it.

Cliff...you are correct, along with prices. The promise by some Democrats in public that they were not in support of more gun control measures has turned out to be good because it showed Reid there was no support. They need to concentrate on enforcing current laws and see if that has an impact. Adding more laws that just will not be enforced will do absolutely nothing.